The prosecutors chose "aggravated" child abuse. The judge rejected two plea bargains for "non-aggravated" child abuse. The defense attorney convinced the jury that the mother's actions failed to meet the threshold of "aggravated" child abuse, so the jury felt compelled to acquit.

It seems to me that out of the three positions involved in the trial, judge, prosecution, and defense, only the defense was competent. Perhaps the judge could be given some leeway if the prosecution unexpectedly was excessively incompetent, but I would still hope the judge would be able to discern that.

The legal system failed this child. And we should all be deeply ashamed.

Many a trial is decided during jury selection. The goal is almost always to choose people who can be swayed by emotions, and to avoid people who will actually think about the facts of the case.

I am a math teacher. I have never sat on a jury, and I never will. I used to imagine it would be interesting to sit on a jury, hear all the facts, and make an analytical decision based on deduction. I no longer have that fantasy.

Someone who lacks the courage of his convictions wrote:

Of course when it happens in the name of religion or culture a lot of 'tolerant' liberals start starring at their feet instead of condemning the practise. Better to let a child suffer life-long sexual trauma than be called a 'racist' (the inevitable reaction).

Inevitable reaction? Can you cite even one case where some non-Muslim has said that forced female genital mutilation is acceptable?

Even if you can, such is by far the minority opinion. I don't have any links, but I know I have read several posts on Broadsheet condemning such practices.

Really, if you must spinelessly post anonymous invective, try to have at least a sliver of an idea what you are talking about.

One thing that is especially striking about the particular anonymous coward who posted at 6:16 PM is his penchant for abusing the names of the posters he is maligning. He seems to feel empowered by making up derogatory versions of other poster's names, but is under no threat of that himself, since he cravenly hides behind anonymous.

(I am using the masculine third person pronouns for two reasons: Our patriarchal language rules make it correct English, and, I would bet dollars to donuts the coward actually is male.)

Somebody else who calls him dimbulb I see. He is the only one whose name I alter. And I only do so because he is demonstrably such a dim bulb.

But I don't think the either he or the anonymous coward are teenagers. I think they are both adult men who cannot effectively interact with adult females and have therefore channeled their frustration into aggression. And, being cowards, have channeled their aggression into the safe arena of posting childishly nasty responses onto message boards.

The best way to combat such craven childish behavior is to ignore it entirely, or to refer to it dismissively in the third person.

I admit that sometimes, when I have had a particularly trying day, I slip up and engage them directly. But I try real hard to refrain.

Please, King, keep writing about baseball. Can't can't can't get enough baseball. I am counting down the days until pitchers and catchers report.

Is it Spring yet?

The LW is distressed. She is being consumed by her obsession, and understands that it needs to stop. But she doesn't know how to stop it, so she writes to the advice columnist asking for help.

What does Tennis do? He jovially cheers her on. Go for it, he says. All that tension and stress and dispair is misplaced. You aren't experiencing a problem. Why do you think it's a problem?

God, LW, ignore utterly everything Tennis has said, and look elsewhere for some real help.

She got elected by all the lesbians in NYC.

See, lesbians don't have any sexual attraction to Bill, so they don't hate Hillary for stealing their man away.

Also, the lesbians for Hillary concept supports the Eryn Loeb was saying if you dislike Hillary it's because you hate women thing. Because lesbians don't hate women. They love women.

(I am getting this Hillary is a lesbian thing correctly, right?)

This concept also explains Fred Thompson's popularity. His wife is really hot, and men look up to a man with a really hot wife.

I am so glad we have clarified the whole Who you want to have sex with determines your politics thing.

God Bless America!

When Cheney is drawing strength from people, it is in the sense of a vampire.

Actually, the only candidate picker I tried gave me 1. Gravel, 2. Kucinich, 3. Biden.

But it doesn't make any difference. I live in Oklahoma. I get no say in the primaries, and I get no say in the general election. Even Giuliani would win here, and Oklahomans tend to automatically reject anything New York.

Presidential candidates almost never even cross the borders into my state, and then it isn't to campaign as much as it is to raise money.

It totally sucks that our system is set up so that I don't get a say. It is cold comfort to know that I can vote for the candidate I actually want without worrying about choosing wrong and helping one I don't want.

Texas is a weak-governor state, too. Bush had a lot fewer opportunities to screw things up there.

If you over-stress the word "the," you can really break the listener's concentration. When you consider how often the word "the" occurs in our language, it can become difficult to get any point at all out of a talking-head blog. Perhaps a talking-head blogger could work on his or her delivery to avoid making the word "the" so distracting, and therefore allow the content to be more important than the sound.

If the blogger can't avoid making the method of delivery so obtrusive, perhaps typewritten blogs are a better choice.